Whats the best way to measure intelligence?
(1)How happy you are during the day.
(2)How much money you have in the bank.
(3)How big the number was on your IQ test.
(4)Original unique ideas per day.
What other ones can you think of 
Below Added by Meddling Monk
(5) How much stuff you know (amount of knowledge) OR
Your level of understanding (mostly of the most difficult question.... "Why?")
(6) How quickly you can work out things (problem solve; ie. the speed at which the mind works)
Below Added by Ocalhoun
(7) Capacity for and retention of knowledge (memory)
(
Abstraction (The ability to think about things unrelated to tangible, concrete items.)
Below Added by Bikerman
(9)Adapting one's environment
Below added by king jafy joe
(10)how you feel about your second mistakes you make in your life! You should also only make a certain mistake once in your life, two times, you lack intelligence.
Last edited by chasbeen on Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:36 am; edited 10 times in total Hmm. I would probably add the following as possible measures of intelligence, but I wouldn't say that they are sufficient.
(5) How much stuff you know (amount of knowledge) OR
Your level of understanding (mostly of the most difficult question.... "Why?")
(6) How quickly you can work out things (problem solve; ie. the speed at which the mind works)
If you use these measures, then there is a problem - is a person who knows the whole Encyclopaedia Britannica, but is slow at solving any problems within their knowledge, whether simple or complex, more or less intelligent than someone who knows very little of the encyclopaedia, yet can solve most problems within their field very quickly?
I would say intelligence is being able to adapt to different situations , especially rapidly, I suppose this is the same as the above mentioned number 6
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I would say intelligence is being able to adapt to different situations , especially rapidly, I suppose this is the same as the above mentioned number 6 |
Hmm....there is a problem with that. It defines a completely passive response - the individual simply responds to stimulii and adapts. You could easily imagine a machine with that capability but would you say that such a machine was intelligent? I think you would, at the very least, have to broaden the definition a little - perhaps along the lines of Sternberg's definition which can be stated simply as:
Intelligence is goal directed adaptive behaviour. *
*I don't personally agree with that definition but it is, I think, at least a creditable attempt.....Perhaps the word intelligence is too general.
I mean is there not several different 'TYPES' of intelligence?
I'm thinking that it might be like saying who the most athletic at the Olympics?
Some different types of intelligence probably precludes others. You will never see a shot putter win the 100 meters although some attributes of a shot putter make them very good sprinters.
Maybe the most intelligent is the winner of the decathalon? IE they are not the fastest thinker but the best all rounder? 
^There are indeed several different types... Anybody want to help me identify them?
1> Speed (6)
2> Ingenuity/creativeness (related to (4))
3> Accumulated Knowledge (sort of (5))
4> Capacity for and retention of knowledge (memory)
5> Abstraction (The ability to think about things unrelated to tangible, concrete items.)
And there are probably more...
Anyway, everybody has some degree of each of those four, (or you wouldn't be capable of posting here) and those with a high degree of a most (or all) of them would be those we think of as geniuses.
(5> perhaps needs some clarification, this would be the ability to imagine things, I suppose. The ability to compose programming code, music or writing, and then write it down, without needing revisions. The ability to imagine what a particular blend of spices will taste like when cooked, and make adjustments based on that. The ability to contemplate absolutely abstract mathematical concepts. Making a plan for a simple dinner and then making it would be a low level of this, constructing a complex computer program in your head, and then mentally debugging it, then entering it into a computer to have it run flawlessly the first time would be a high level of this type of intelligence.)
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I would say intelligence is being able to adapt to different situations , especially rapidly, I suppose this is the same as the above mentioned number 6 |
Hmm....there is a problem with that. It defines a completely passive response - the individual simply responds to stimulii and adapts. You could easily imagine a machine with that capability but would you say that such a machine was intelligent? I think you would, at the very least, have to broaden the definition a little - perhaps along the lines of Sternberg's definition which can be stated simply as:
Intelligence is goal directed adaptive behaviour. *
*I don't personally agree with that definition but it is, I think, at least a creditable attempt..... |
When I say different I probably mean and should have used unusuall , I ( as a sentient individual ) can adapt with no direct stimuli, I can use my "imagination" and adapt to situations that have not ever happened or are even likely to , I can plan for the future , I can lie , cheat ,and double bluff , I can take risks , I can do the opposite of the logical choice ,If a machine could do this and understand it was doing it, then I would say it possesed intelligence. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | I would say intelligence is being able to adapt to different situations , especially rapidly, I suppose this is the same as the above mentioned number 6 |
Hmm....there is a problem with that. It defines a completely passive response - the individual simply responds to stimulii and adapts. You could easily imagine a machine with that capability but would you say that such a machine was intelligent? I think you would, at the very least, have to broaden the definition a little - perhaps along the lines of Sternberg's definition which can be stated simply as:
Intelligence is goal directed adaptive behaviour. *
*I don't personally agree with that definition but it is, I think, at least a creditable attempt..... |
When I say different I probably mean and should have used unusuall , I ( as a sentient individual ) can adapt with no direct stimuli, I can use my "imagination" and adapt to situations that have not ever happened or are even likely to , I can plan for the future , I can lie , cheat ,and double bluff , I can take risks , I can do the opposite of the logical choice ,If a machine could do this and understand it was doing it, then I would say it possesed intelligence. |
I think you missed the point. The important addition was 'Goal Directed'. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | I would say intelligence is being able to adapt to different situations , especially rapidly, I suppose this is the same as the above mentioned number 6 |
Hmm....there is a problem with that. It defines a completely passive response - the individual simply responds to stimulii and adapts. You could easily imagine a machine with that capability but would you say that such a machine was intelligent? I think you would, at the very least, have to broaden the definition a little - perhaps along the lines of Sternberg's definition which can be stated simply as:
Intelligence is goal directed adaptive behaviour. *
*I don't personally agree with that definition but it is, I think, at least a creditable attempt..... |
When I say different I probably mean and should have used unusuall , I ( as a sentient individual ) can adapt with no direct stimuli, I can use my "imagination" and adapt to situations that have not ever happened or are even likely to , I can plan for the future , I can lie , cheat ,and double bluff , I can take risks , I can do the opposite of the logical choice ,If a machine could do this and understand it was doing it, then I would say it possesed intelligence. |
I think you missed the point. The important addition was 'Goal Directed'. |
Yep *whoosh* , please make the point again for a village idiot, I wont be offended.
Goal direction... a goal you want to achieve or need to achieve ?The point is that adaption is (or can be) an 'automatic' and 'aimless' process which is not directed to achieving a specific outcome - mindless reaction to stimulus. Evolution is an example of this on a more macro level but we would not say that evolution was an intelligent process.....
'Goal directed' adaption implies that there is some planning or understanding behind the process.
| Bikerman wrote: |
The point is that adaption is (or can be) an 'automatic' and 'aimless' process which is not directed to achieving a specific outcome - mindless reaction to stimulus. Evolution is an example of this on a more macro level but we would not say that evolution was an intelligent process.....
'Goal directed' adaption implies that there is some planning or understanding behind the process. |
Is adaptation the same as behavioural adaptation in this context ? | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | The point is that adaption is (or can be) an 'automatic' and 'aimless' process which is not directed to achieving a specific outcome - mindless reaction to stimulus. Evolution is an example of this on a more macro level but we would not say that evolution was an intelligent process.....
'Goal directed' adaption implies that there is some planning or understanding behind the process. |
Is adaptation the same as behavioural adaptation in this context ? |
Good question.
As I said previously, I don't really support this definition of intelligence personally, though I can see it has some merit. I would say that, yes, behavioural adaption would be included but not necessarily the whole picture. One could also argue that adapting one's environment is also a sign of intelligence.Adapting one's environment could be elaborated on. Once you have "Adapted your environment" to 100% what you want it to be, then you are totally free. I imagine most people want freedom and their definition of it is their objective. Perhaps you could say "Ability to adapt your environment to what you want". 
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | The point is that adaption is (or can be) an 'automatic' and 'aimless' process which is not directed to achieving a specific outcome - mindless reaction to stimulus. Evolution is an example of this on a more macro level but we would not say that evolution was an intelligent process.....
'Goal directed' adaption implies that there is some planning or understanding behind the process. |
Is adaptation the same as behavioural adaptation in this context ? |
Good question.
As I said previously, I don't really support this definition of intelligence personally, though I can see it has some merit. I would say that, yes, behavioural adaption would be included but not necessarily the whole picture. One could also argue that adapting one's environment is also a sign of intelligence. |
Is'nt adapting ones enviroment simply the "Goal direction" ?No, everyones got "goal direction" I think.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
Is'nt adapting ones enviroment simply the "Goal direction" ? |
Yes, certainly that is a valid assumption and that is, incidentally, one of my problems with the definition. To be fair, however, I should say that the definition would seem to require the goal to be able to shift according to circumstance rather than to be a single imperative or driver. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
Is'nt adapting ones enviroment simply the "Goal direction" ? |
Yes, certainly that is a valid assumption and that is, incidentally, one of my problems with the definition. To be fair, however, I should say that the definition would seem to require the goal to be able to shift according to circumstance rather than to be a single imperative or driver. |
I would say that many examples of acclimations to an environment (adaptations in common parlance) don't require any kind of intelligence.
Maybe our intelligence has to do with how well we decide how to adapt, given the apparent choice.how you feel about your second mistakes you make in your life! You should also only make a certain mistake once in your life, two times, you lack intelligence. So i definitely think this is one of them.
1. A problem may have different solutions, how fast can one find a suitable solution that others would overlook.
2. Thinking "out of the box".
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
Is'nt adapting ones enviroment simply the "Goal direction" ? |
Yes, certainly that is a valid assumption and that is, incidentally, one of my problems with the definition. To be fair, however, I should say that the definition would seem to require the goal to be able to shift according to circumstance rather than to be a single imperative or driver. |
Yes I kind of agree, I would prefer something along the lines of "Effort Managment" rather than "Goal Direction".
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
I would say that many examples of acclimations to an environment (adaptations in common parlance) don't require any kind of intelligence. |
I would agree , but what about of an enviroment ?
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
Maybe our intelligence has to do with how well we decide how to adapt, given the apparent choice.
|
Behavioural adaptation ? 
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: |
Is'nt adapting ones enviroment simply the "Goal direction" ? |
Yes, certainly that is a valid assumption and that is, incidentally, one of my problems with the definition. To be fair, however, I should say that the definition would seem to require the goal to be able to shift according to circumstance rather than to be a single imperative or driver. |
I would say that many examples of acclimations to an environment (adaptations in common parlance) don't require any kind of intelligence.
Maybe our intelligence has to do with how well we decide how to adapt, given the apparent choice. |
Yes, fair point. It would also include our ability to not adapt (ie to change the environment rather than change our own behaviour).A single test cannot determine intelligence. A huge battery of tests might give a more accurate result.
Are we considering intelligence what we are born with?
No, that cannot be measured 
I measure intelligence with someone's thought processes. Most people measure it with knowledge and I think that's a horrible way to measure it. You can know everything there is in the world and I'll still not consider you intelligent if you can't think. For instance, I wouldn't care if Charles Darwin's theory of evolution turned out to be completely wrong; I would still consider him to be one of the smartest people ever simply because of the thought processes required to come up with a theory like that.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I measure intelligence with someone's thought processes. Most people measure it with knowledge and I think that's a horrible way to measure it. You can know everything there is in the world and I'll still not consider you intelligent if you can't think. For instance, I wouldn't care if Charles Darwin's theory of evolution turned out to be completely wrong; I would still consider him to be one of the smartest people ever simply because of the thought processes required to come up with a theory like that. |
OK....how do you measure thought process then? How do you test them and what scale or type of measure do you apply? Would, for example, Darwin be more or less intelligent that Einstein?I personally think that "Knowledge is Intelligence" people have some misconceptions. Have you noticed that if you are interested in something how much more you learn compared to "forcing knowledge" into your head so that you can get a big number in an exam.
We can derive from this then that if you are interested or shall we start using the word "curious" about something and you have an insatiable appetite for it, then you do indeed become more intelligent because your "cpu" (brain) is working at many cycles storing, refining and distributing RELEVENT information that YOU need to know.
In the second paragraph we might argue that we are somehow exercising our brain and possibly becoming more intelligent.
I suppose the above paragraphs are about "Knowledge is Intelligence" but the subject as a whole is still only a relatively small part of the TOTAL SUBJECT.
WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE 
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | I measure intelligence with someone's thought processes. Most people measure it with knowledge and I think that's a horrible way to measure it. You can know everything there is in the world and I'll still not consider you intelligent if you can't think. For instance, I wouldn't care if Charles Darwin's theory of evolution turned out to be completely wrong; I would still consider him to be one of the smartest people ever simply because of the thought processes required to come up with a theory like that. |
OK....how do you measure thought process then? How do you test them and what scale or type of measure do you apply? Would, for example, Darwin be more or less intelligent that Einstein? |
Good question. I usually determine someone's intelligence, or thought processes, by observations I make about them in different situations. Sometimes I determine intelligence by someone's speed in coming up with a solution to a problem, or by the quality of the solution. This is one reason why I tend to find mathematicians and scientists to be more intelligent than historians, although historians may be more knowledgeable (and I know, all history lovers are probably going to be angry with me for that comment). Scientists and mathematicians spend their lives coming up with solutions for problems.
While Einstein and Darwin were both extremely intelligent, I think that Einstein is more intelligent because Darwin came up with one theory that showed signs of brilliance while Einstein came up with multiple theories. Einstein was also more intuitive than Darwin, which was also partly his downfall because intuitive people often have trouble proving their theories because they tend to "just know them." | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Good question. I usually determine someone's intelligence, or thought processes, by observations I make about them in different situations. Sometimes I determine intelligence by someone's speed in coming up with a solution to a problem, or by the quality of the solution. This is one reason why I tend to find mathematicians and scientists to be more intelligent than historians, although historians may be more knowledgeable (and I know, all history lovers are probably going to be angry with me for that comment). Scientists and mathematicians spend their lives coming up with solutions for problems. |
OK...let me play devil's advocate here. Historians also solve problems. Scientists generally work on problems in the physical universe which are fairly mechanistic and, therefore, computable given the correct equations. Historians work on the 'human universe' which is much more complex and has many more variables than, say, a problem in cosmology or chemistry. Such problems are rarely, if ever, computable and require a breadth and depth of understanding that a problem in chemistry does not require....?
| Quote: |
| While Einstein and Darwin were both extremely intelligent, I think that Einstein is more intelligent because Darwin came up with one theory that showed signs of brilliance while Einstein came up with multiple theories. Einstein was also more intuitive than Darwin, which was also partly his downfall because intuitive people often have trouble proving their theories because they tend to "just know them." |
I think you need to be careful with this 'intuitive' label. I understand what you are saying about Einstein, but it could also be argued that intuition is a barrier to problem-solving (as you hint). Einstein himself never really engaged with quantum physics in the second-half of his life because (I believe) he felt, intuitively, it was wrong. If we are to use problem solving as a measure of intelligence then it could be argued that Einstein's intuition was a negative influence in this regard. He certainly did come up with multiple theories but the two that he is remembered for are actually parts of the same overall theory (General Relativity subsumed the earlier Special Relativity). | Bikerman wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Good question. I usually determine someone's intelligence, or thought processes, by observations I make about them in different situations. Sometimes I determine intelligence by someone's speed in coming up with a solution to a problem, or by the quality of the solution. This is one reason why I tend to find mathematicians and scientists to be more intelligent than historians, although historians may be more knowledgeable (and I know, all history lovers are probably going to be angry with me for that comment). Scientists and mathematicians spend their lives coming up with solutions for problems. |
OK...let me play devil's advocate here. Historians also solve problems. Scientists generally work on problems in the physical universe which are fairly mechanistic and, therefore, computable given the correct equations. Historians work on the 'human universe' which is much more complex and has many more variables than, say, a problem in cosmology or chemistry. Such problems are rarely, if ever, computable and require a breadth and depth of understanding that a problem in chemistry does not require....? |
It is true that some historians are intelligent, and they do have problem solving skills. I simply have a bias towards math and science because that's what I am studying in school, and I have never liked history. However, I've seen some historians that are very good at math, they just have a career in history because they enjoy it. But when I posted my original comment about them being just knowledgeable, and not all of them being intelligent, I was referring to many that I have met. For example, I knew this one person a while back who was extremely knowledgeable. He could name every president in the United State's history, their term dates, and major accomplishments. He could name every single country along with its capital. When he was in school, he took every advanced placement history test that you can take (World History, United States History, European History, Art History, etc.) and he got a five - which is a perfect score in case you haven't heard of the A.P. tests - on every single on of them. This guy was so knowledgeable, yet I wouldn't ever hire him for a job. He knew all of his history well, but he couldn't think. His abilities were useless because he couldn't do anything that google.com can't do in thirty seconds. If he is ever placed with any type of problem he'll be stuck because he'll never know what to do. This was a long time ago, and since then I have met many history majors and historians like this. So these are the people I was referring to, and sorry, I shouldn't have singled out all historians.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | While Einstein and Darwin were both extremely intelligent, I think that Einstein is more intelligent because Darwin came up with one theory that showed signs of brilliance while Einstein came up with multiple theories. Einstein was also more intuitive than Darwin, which was also partly his downfall because intuitive people often have trouble proving their theories because they tend to "just know them." |
I think you need to be careful with this 'intuitive' label. I understand what you are saying about Einstein, but it could also be argued that intuition is a barrier to problem-solving (as you hint). Einstein himself never really engaged with quantum physics in the second-half of his life because (I believe) he felt, intuitively, it was wrong. If we are to use problem solving as a measure of intelligence then it could be argued that Einstein's intuition was a negative influence in this regard. He certainly did come up with multiple theories but the two that he is remembered for are actually parts of the same overall theory (General Relativity subsumed the earlier Special Relativity). |
I think you may be right about intuition being a barrier to problem solving, which I guess could be another reason for it being one of his downfalls. I originally stated it as a downfall for him because a lot of the time intuition makes things harder to prove (for example, the hardest mathematical proof ever - in my opinion - is proving that 1+1=2. There's some book out there proving that and it's extremely complicated. Most people just know that from intuition). But I can see where intuition can be a barrier to problem solving because like you said, it stopped Einstein from studying a subject. However, I think this can also be a positive attribute in problem solving because it helps you arrive at solutions quicker and easier than nonintuitive people, and as long as you can prove, or confirm, what you think the solution may be, it puts in a good position. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I think that Einstein is more intelligent because Darwin came up with one theory that showed signs of brilliance while Einstein came up with multiple theories. Einstein was also more intuitive than Darwin, which was also partly his downfall because intuitive people often have trouble proving their theories because they tend to "just know them." |
It seems unlikely you are actually very familar with Darwin's theories, or you wouldn't really say something like this. My impression of Darwin's brilliance has increased the more I've learned about him and his theories. | Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | I think that Einstein is more intelligent because Darwin came up with one theory that showed signs of brilliance while Einstein came up with multiple theories. Einstein was also more intuitive than Darwin, which was also partly his downfall because intuitive people often have trouble proving their theories because they tend to "just know them." |
It seems unlikely you are actually very familar with Darwin's theories, or you wouldn't really say something like this. My impression of Darwin's brilliance has increased the more I've learned about him and his theories. |
I'm familiar with Darwin. I've read the Origin of Species and studied him a lot. But I think that Einstein had an edge over him.intelligence goes in the multiple... probably they have come up to 12 ways or more to be intelligent by now, can anyone tell the different ways?
For the tests - in my opinion I suggest mostly tests tend to be just a way to make the constructor happy...
What about how often you can think of questions which goes to the core of the problem? It is always question, which starts the process of thinking. Imagine you the last human on Earth. Could you think about something without questions?
| redace919 wrote: |
| It is always question, which starts the process of thinking. Imagine you the last human on Earth. Could you think about something without questions? |
What about, "I'm hungry! Where can I get some food?"
In that case, a statement-type thought precedes the question.the best way to measure intelligence and that's how it's actually measured is IQ. the higher your IQ the smarter it means you are.
| DrGee wrote: |
| the best way to measure intelligence and that's how it's actually measured is IQ. the higher your IQ the smarter it means you are. |
IQ tests are, more often than not, used to determine someone's ability to learn, not how smart someone actually is.Whats the difference between ability to learn and how smart someone is. I think how smart someone is their ability to learn, and is how intelligent they are. Its different than how knowledgeable they are. You can have a person with a really high IQ that knows little, or someone thats stupid but knows more than normal.
Our main problem is that we are trying to measure something without first defining it.
Suppose I take an IQ test, and then retake a very similar one. I score a lot better on the second one. Did taking the first test make me more intelligent? Or is intelligence inborn and unchangeable? I would say the former, but perhaps others here would not?
Of the choices, probably unique ideas. I think this is what separates humans from other animals as well, they are able to innovate/invent.
Chimps, all the rest can memorize. The ability to innovate to a much greater extent is what defines human intelligence, and can be a way to measure.
I guess that how well you improved when encountering a situation you dealth with earlier. If you know the results what happens if you do one thing, how it would change the thing and hopefully improve it in real time. This includes factors like speed and imagination. For example you encounter wild dogs who don't look friendly. They cornered you and are ready to attack. The first time you get severe injuries but you got rescued by some guy. Second time you get in the situation, maybe you'll be better on the lookout for escape router, ladders, or any other paths to evade the corner you've been earlier.
But throwing someone into this situation isn't really a nice thing to do so maybe it will just be a computer simulation.
I would ideally use an EEG and track brain activity when it is exposed to different types of stimulus, such as maths equations and modern art, and measure the extent of brain activity, and how the brain processes the information.
You can't measure it for you, I'll tell you that. And the worst way to measure it is with one test. You'll need to use a lot of tests if you want some kind of idea of overall intelligence I guess.
intelligence = how satisfied are you with what you have ???
Defining intelligence is a problem, as we can see. According to wikipedia, it's an "umbrella term." So we must be more specific in order to measure it.
| doppleganger wrote: |
| intelligence = how satisfied are you with what you have ??? |
If you fail school, fail your parents in any possible way and you've found a can of coke, and you are satisfied with that one can, are you intelligent? | Flakky wrote: |
| doppleganger wrote: | | intelligence = how satisfied are you with what you have ??? |
If you fail school, fail your parents in any possible way and you've found a can of coke, and you are satisfied with that one can, are you intelligent? |
Yes; intelligent people find ways to be happy with what they have. If you are satisfied with what you have, you will be much happier than if you are not satisfied with what you have because you won't be constantly searching for more. Happiness is one of the most important things in life. So I would say that that person is extremely intelligent.
P.S. I don't actually believe what I just said, but I want to debate that for the sake of having a debate... so let's go with it! | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Flakky wrote: | | doppleganger wrote: | | intelligence = how satisfied are you with what you have ??? |
If you fail school, fail your parents in any possible way and you've found a can of coke, and you are satisfied with that one can, are you intelligent? |
Yes; intelligent people find ways to be happy with what they have. If you are satisfied with what you have, you will be much happier than if you are not satisfied with what you have because you won't be constantly searching for more. Happiness is one of the most important things in life. So I would say that that person is extremely intelligent.
P.S. I don't actually believe what I just said, but I want to debate that for the sake of having a debate... so let's go with it! |
As a debate, I'll try convincing you, I got a whip or just listen to my arguments
Maybe from your own perspective you actually have something to be proud of, to be smart but as a third person you actually look like some weird guy with no future. I'd say this can't be a way of measuring intelligence because it's more based on your self esteem. | Flakky wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Flakky wrote: | | doppleganger wrote: | | intelligence = how satisfied are you with what you have ??? |
If you fail school, fail your parents in any possible way and you've found a can of coke, and you are satisfied with that one can, are you intelligent? |
Yes; intelligent people find ways to be happy with what they have. If you are satisfied with what you have, you will be much happier than if you are not satisfied with what you have because you won't be constantly searching for more. Happiness is one of the most important things in life. So I would say that that person is extremely intelligent.
P.S. I don't actually believe what I just said, but I want to debate that for the sake of having a debate... so let's go with it! |
As a debate, I'll try convincing you, I got a whip or just listen to my arguments :P
Maybe from your own perspective you actually have something to be proud of, to be smart but as a third person you actually look like some weird guy with no future. I'd say this can't be a way of measuring intelligence because it's more based on your self esteem. |
But There's people who have a high self-esteem that spend their entire lives searching for happiness, and it looks like this guy has already found the key to happiness. How many people can say that they found the key to happiness? | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Flakky wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Flakky wrote: | | doppleganger wrote: | | intelligence = how satisfied are you with what you have ??? |
If you fail school, fail your parents in any possible way and you've found a can of coke, and you are satisfied with that one can, are you intelligent? |
Yes; intelligent people find ways to be happy with what they have. If you are satisfied with what you have, you will be much happier than if you are not satisfied with what you have because you won't be constantly searching for more. Happiness is one of the most important things in life. So I would say that that person is extremely intelligent.
P.S. I don't actually believe what I just said, but I want to debate that for the sake of having a debate... so let's go with it! |
As a debate, I'll try convincing you, I got a whip or just listen to my arguments
Maybe from your own perspective you actually have something to be proud of, to be smart but as a third person you actually look like some weird guy with no future. I'd say this can't be a way of measuring intelligence because it's more based on your self esteem. |
But There's people who have a high self-esteem that spend their entire lives searching for happiness, and it looks like this guy has already found the key to happiness. How many people can say that they found the key to happiness? |
I'm intelligent enough to realize there is none But why is happyness a factor in intelligence? You can't travel to space with it? You can't cure diseases with it? | Flakky wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Flakky wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Flakky wrote: | | doppleganger wrote: | | intelligence = how satisfied are you with what you have ??? |
If you fail school, fail your parents in any possible way and you've found a can of coke, and you are satisfied with that one can, are you intelligent? |
Yes; intelligent people find ways to be happy with what they have. If you are satisfied with what you have, you will be much happier than if you are not satisfied with what you have because you won't be constantly searching for more. Happiness is one of the most important things in life. So I would say that that person is extremely intelligent.
P.S. I don't actually believe what I just said, but I want to debate that for the sake of having a debate... so let's go with it! |
As a debate, I'll try convincing you, I got a whip or just listen to my arguments :P
Maybe from your own perspective you actually have something to be proud of, to be smart but as a third person you actually look like some weird guy with no future. I'd say this can't be a way of measuring intelligence because it's more based on your self esteem. |
But There's people who have a high self-esteem that spend their entire lives searching for happiness, and it looks like this guy has already found the key to happiness. How many people can say that they found the key to happiness? |
I'm intelligent enough to realize there is none :P But why is happyness a factor in intelligence? You can't travel to space with it? You can't cure diseases with it? |
Happiness is what life is all about. Everyone wants to be happy. Some people spend years seeking it and never finding it. That person that found the soda and was happy was intelligent because he found happiness much quicker than "intellectual" people; therefore, he is ensuring himself a good life. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Flakky wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Flakky wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Flakky wrote: | | doppleganger wrote: | | intelligence = how satisfied are you with what you have ??? |
If you fail school, fail your parents in any possible way and you've found a can of coke, and you are satisfied with that one can, are you intelligent? |
Yes; intelligent people find ways to be happy with what they have. If you are satisfied with what you have, you will be much happier than if you are not satisfied with what you have because you won't be constantly searching for more. Happiness is one of the most important things in life. So I would say that that person is extremely intelligent.
P.S. I don't actually believe what I just said, but I want to debate that for the sake of having a debate... so let's go with it! |
As a debate, I'll try convincing you, I got a whip or just listen to my arguments
Maybe from your own perspective you actually have something to be proud of, to be smart but as a third person you actually look like some weird guy with no future. I'd say this can't be a way of measuring intelligence because it's more based on your self esteem. |
But There's people who have a high self-esteem that spend their entire lives searching for happiness, and it looks like this guy has already found the key to happiness. How many people can say that they found the key to happiness? |
I'm intelligent enough to realize there is none But why is happyness a factor in intelligence? You can't travel to space with it? You can't cure diseases with it? |
Happiness is what life is all about. Everyone wants to be happy. Some people spend years seeking it and never finding it. That person that found the soda and was happy was intelligent because he found happiness much quicker than "intellectual" people; therefore, he is ensuring himself a good life. |
I'm going to stop you at this point about happiness being the ultimate goal in human life. It's proven and I'm using Hitler as an example of the ultimate human goal: Acknowledgement/renown (I don't know the exact term). I thought of this a moment ago, I remembered what someone said and now I'm just telling what he said.
When Hitler shared his ideas with the world, there were a few people who pointed at him and said "You're right, you are right about everything you say." At that point Hitler got a glimpse of the ultimate goal. He wrote a book, stating his opinion and wrote racial texts aimed at Jewish people. A group who read the book again told Hitler that he is right, he is almighty.
At that point things went fast, he lied to the people in order to achieve what he wrote down and while ago and what people supported him about. At the end of the war he came to realize that he never was able to succeed what people have actually pushed him to do, the war is almost over and he would get into jail, loosing all his supporters. He committed suicide because this human goal could no longer be achieved.
Was Hitler happy at any point? Not necesarily but he was intelligent enough to reach it to the top of the rank and literary scar the world. His 'experiments' with chemicals teached the world how to produce deadly toxins but he did discover some cures which on the long term might save more lives than he had killed during his life. He's still a terrible person.
Digest that If happiness is the ultimate goal in life, why don't we all take tranquilizer/drug thingies that release tons of that happy chemical. Then we'll die a bit later, but we'll be happy. (This is a joke to point out perhaps a problem with the statement of happiness being the ultimate goal in life.)
| nilsmo wrote: |
| If happiness is the ultimate goal in life, why don't we all take tranquilizer/drug thingies that release tons of that happy chemical. Then we'll die a bit later, but we'll be happy. (This is a joke to point out perhaps a problem with the statement of happiness being the ultimate goal in life.) |
It might be a joke, but just to keep alive the discussion
Humans have an instinct which would pretty much kick in I presume. Animals do everything it takes to stay alive in a dead or alive situation. No I am not talking about 3D babes playing beach ball.
It's unrealistic to achieve happiness knowing we will die off. You might not care about dying in the state you actually took the transquilizer/drug but you probably do before taking the drug.
Plus it's not a very effective method to measure intelligence either, to go back on topic
